The Privacy Act of 1974 was written to prevent exactly this: government employees using federal databases containing Social Security numbers, health records, and bank account information for unauthorized purposes. For nearly a year, Department of Government Efficiency staffers did it anyway—copying the records of 300 million Americans to unsecured servers, sharing files with outside political groups, and coordinating with election-denial activists to match voter rolls against Social Security data.
The Trump administration has now admitted in court filings what a whistleblower alleged in August: DOGE employees violated internal policies, circumvented security protocols, and may have broken federal law. The full extent of the data compromise remains unknown. Federal courts have alternated between blocking and allowing DOGE access, and the case now turns on whether the Privacy Act's post-Watergate safeguards can constrain a White House that treats them as obstacles.
DOGE staffer signs agreement with unnamed political advocacy group to analyze state voter rolls—four days after restraining order.
Court Issues Temporary Restraining Order
Legal
Judge Hollander blocks DOGE access to SSA systems and orders deletion of personally identifiable data.
SAVE System Access Requested
Investigation
Moghaddassi requests DHS SAVE system access to check immigration status, calling it 'absolutely critical.'
Unauthorized Cloudflare Server Use Begins
Violation
DOGE team begins sharing SSA data through Cloudflare, an unapproved third-party server.
Encrypted File Sent to DHS
Violation
DOGE staffers send password-protected file containing ~1,000 individuals' personal data to DHS.
Judge Blocks DOGE at Education and OPM
Legal
Maryland federal judge issues temporary restraining order preventing data sharing with DOGE at Education Department and OPM.
Lawsuit Filed Against DOGE Data Access
Legal
Democracy Forward sues on behalf of unions and retirees, alleging Privacy Act violations.
Dudek Appointed SSA Acting Commissioner
Personnel
Trump replaces Michelle King with Leland Dudek, who had been placed on leave for unauthorized DOGE communications.
DOGE Established by Executive Order
Policy
Trump signs executive order creating the Department of Government Efficiency, reorganizing the U.S. Digital Service.
Scenarios
1
Courts Reinstate Full Data Access Restrictions
Discussed by: Democracy Forward, AFSCME, legal scholars including Alexandra Reeve Givens of CDT
The Fourth Circuit or Supreme Court could ultimately side with plaintiffs on the merits, finding sustained Privacy Act violations and ordering permanent restrictions on executive branch data consolidation. This would require courts to reject the administration's argument that DOGE access serves legitimate modernization purposes. The recent DOJ admissions of policy violations strengthen plaintiffs' case that access was not properly controlled.
2
Hatch Act Prosecutions Lead to Criminal Referrals
Discussed by: Government ethics experts, Office of Special Counsel observers
The two DOGE staffers referred to the Office of Special Counsel could face formal Hatch Act charges if the investigation confirms they used government positions to advance partisan electoral goals—specifically, analyzing voter rolls to 'overturn election results.' Hatch Act violations can result in removal from federal service, fines, or debarment, though criminal prosecution is rare and penalties are limited.
3
Voter Fraud Claims Collapse Under Scrutiny
Discussed by: MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Cato Institute, independent election experts
The data-matching effort that justified DOGE's access—finding noncitizens on voter rolls—has already shrunk from 'thousands' to 57 referrals that 'may or may not have voted.' If prosecutions fail to materialize or reveal U.S. citizens wrongly flagged, the entire justification for unprecedented data access collapses. This outcome would vindicate critics who called the effort 'error-prone and legally questionable.'
The DOGE controversy could prompt bipartisan legislation to strengthen Privacy Act enforcement, similar to how Nixon-era abuses led to the original 1974 law and IRS restructuring in 1998. Potential reforms include criminal penalties for political use of federal data, mandatory breach notifications, and restrictions on data-sharing between agencies without congressional approval.
Historical Context
Nixon's Political Enemies Project (1971-1974)
1971-1974
What Happened
The Nixon White House maintained an 'enemies list' of 600+ political opponents—journalists, activists, Democratic officials—and attempted to weaponize the IRS to audit and harass them. John Dean coordinated efforts to investigate 490 McGovern campaign staffers. IRS Commissioner Walters refused to comply.
Outcome
Short Term
Nixon faced impeachment charges including allegations he 'endeavoured to cause income tax audits or other investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.'
Long Term
Congress passed the Privacy Act of 1974 to prevent government abuse of personal data. In 1998, bipartisan legislation explicitly prohibited the President from requesting audits of specific taxpayers.
Why It's Relevant Today
The Privacy Act was written to prevent exactly what DOGE staffers allegedly did: using government databases for political purposes. The DOGE controversy tests whether those post-Watergate safeguards remain enforceable.
OPM Data Breach (2014-2015)
2014-2015
What Happened
Chinese state-sponsored hackers breached the Office of Personnel Management, exposing personal data of 21.5 million federal employees and security clearance applicants—including Social Security numbers, addresses, fingerprints, and background-check details. OPM Director Katherine Archuleta admitted SSNs weren't encrypted due to 'antiquated systems.'
Outcome
Short Term
Archuleta and OPM's CIO resigned. A Chinese national was later arrested and deported for providing malware used in the breach.
Long Term
Class-action lawsuits resulted in $63 million settlement in 2022. The breach established that data exposure creates 'actual damages' under the Privacy Act, even without proven identity theft.
Why It's Relevant Today
The OPM breach showed what happens when 20+ million federal records are exposed. DOGE's alleged copying of 300+ million Americans' data to unsecured servers represents a potentially larger exposure, this time from inside the government.
2000 Mules Retraction (2022-2024)
2022-2024
What Happened
Documentary filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza released '2000 Mules,' claiming cell phone geolocation data proved widespread ballot fraud in 2020. True the Vote supplied the underlying data. The film accused a Georgia man of being a 'mule' who illegally delivered ballots.
Outcome
Short Term
Salem Media Group pulled the film from distribution. D'Souza publicly apologized to the Georgia man for 'the distress the allegations have caused.'
Long Term
The retraction demonstrated that data-matching between voter rolls and other databases produces false positives that harm innocent people. No prosecutions resulted from the film's allegations.
Why It's Relevant Today
True the Vote—the group that supplied '2000 Mules' data—publicly appealed to DOGE for voter roll access. Court filings suggest DOGE staffers signed a 'Voter Data Agreement' with an advocacy group seeking to 'overturn election results.'
